If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I was pissed off enough back when they tried the whole "spatial" thing a few years back, but this, this takes the cake.

I need to spend some more time to see if I'm missing something (I don't think I am), but after 20 minutes, I can't stand it!

It seems like it takes between two and three times as many interactions (motions/clicks) to do pretty much everything! Launching apps, switching apps, switching desktops, this all takes longer. And WHY? How does a piece of software doubling the time required to complete the main activities it's responsible for not count as complete FAIL? Do I really have to move all the way top left and then all the way right to switch desktops? How is having one screen with a mountain of app icons all lumped together possibly better than organized in menus??

I switched to the fallback mode, installed and used the tweak tool to bring back the Nautilus desktop, but I still can't arrange my panels. I have years (Linux since 1993) of muscle memory I don't /want/ to overcome. I /was/ relatively happy with my desktop, but they couldn't just leave it alone. I think I might have to switch to KDE (now that QT is LGPL and KDE isn't evil, I would at least consider it).

I don't think I'm gonna be alone here. Let the rebellion begin! I think this will be the start of a Gnome death spiral.

Comment

I was pissed off enough back when they tried the whole "spatial" thing a few years back, but this, this takes the cake.

I need to spend some more time to see if I'm missing something (I don't think I am), but after 20 minutes, I can't stand it!

It seems like it takes between two and three times as many interactions (motions/clicks) to do pretty much everything! Launching apps, switching apps, switching desktops, this all takes longer. And WHY? How does a piece of software doubling the time required to complete the main activities it's responsible for not count as complete FAIL? Do I really have to move all the way top left and then all the way right to switch desktops? How is having one screen with a mountain of app icons all lumped together possibly better than organized in menus??

I switched to the fallback mode, installed and used the tweak tool to bring back the Nautilus desktop, but I still can't arrange my panels. I have years (Linux since 1993) of muscle memory I don't /want/ to overcome. I /was/ relatively happy with my desktop, but they couldn't just leave it alone. I think I might have to switch to KDE (now that QT is LGPL and KDE isn't evil, I would at least consider it).

I don't think I'm gonna be alone here. Let the rebellion begin! I think this will be the start of a Gnome death spiral.

In order to use GS you really have to use it as they intend not as one is used to. Once you do this it is actually fairly efficient though still needs loads of improvements but from all accounts (that I've heard) it is far faster than Unity unless you're using blobs.
Now, have you heard of the GS extensions? Assuming you have look at this http://intgat.tigress.co.uk/rmy/extensions/index.html. It reimplements launchers, classic menu and more but using gnome 3 tech.
good luck!

Comment

I was pissed off enough back when they tried the whole "spatial" thing a few years back, but this, this takes the cake.

I need to spend some more time to see if I'm missing something (I don't think I am), but after 20 minutes, I can't stand it!

It seems like it takes between two and three times as many interactions (motions/clicks) to do pretty much everything! Launching apps, switching apps, switching desktops, this all takes longer. And WHY? How does a piece of software doubling the time required to complete the main activities it's responsible for not count as complete FAIL? Do I really have to move all the way top left and then all the way right to switch desktops? How is having one screen with a mountain of app icons all lumped together possibly better than organized in menus??

I switched to the fallback mode, installed and used the tweak tool to bring back the Nautilus desktop, but I still can't arrange my panels. I have years (Linux since 1993) of muscle memory I don't /want/ to overcome. I /was/ relatively happy with my desktop, but they couldn't just leave it alone. I think I might have to switch to KDE (now that QT is LGPL and KDE isn't evil, I would at least consider it).

I don't think I'm gonna be alone here. Let the rebellion begin! I think this will be the start of a Gnome death spiral.

KDE 4.0 wasn't good either, but 4.6 is far better.
I think Gnome will get better, but on the other hand I think the changes in Gnome 3 are more radical than KDE 4.0

KDE 4.0 was buggy and lacked a lot of the configuration options from 3.5, but it was still a fairly similar desktop experience. They still had a panel with a menu to launch applications. Gnome Shell is an entirely different way of navigating the desktop.

Comment

Booting to the "upgrade" kernel results in a frozen system where the last line on dmesg is

Trying to unpack rootfs image as initramfs...

This upgrade was created by running preupgrade on a fully updated F14 system. So it looks like the new initramfs is defective, but at least the F14 system is still OK.

I never managed to upgrade a fedora install to a newer version, and I've tried a couple of times. It always fails and the system becomes totaly unusable in my case.

This new Fedora version looks nice. As I've said before, I'm really enjoying the new desktop paradigms that are emerging (Unity and Gnome Shell). They are bringing a sense of freshness and inovation to the linux world, but I know lots of people who value stability aren't happy at all with the change. You loose some, you win some. It's impossible to please everybody.

Comment

I actually don't dislike unity, but think its still very unpolished and immature. I find Gnome shell to be very fast and polished.

Yep. Unity is bolted onto Gnome 2.x and it shows.

I wasn't a big fan of Gnome Shell at first but after trialing many of the Fedora test days for Gnome 3 I've grown to really like it. Sure it has some quirks. Personally I think the workspace switcher is ugly.

After learning some of the shortcuts (and there are many, google around) it's quite nice and I much prefer it over 2.x